Dunlap Versus Tennessee Valley Authority - Case Study Example

 Dunlap Versus Tennessee Valley Authority Introduction Dunlap, an African-American applicant submitted his application details for a boilermaker position at TVA. Boilermaker union referred Dunlap for an interview as a skilled and qualified person. The interviewing panel conducted the interview at the Cumberland location areas. The interview comprised of both non-technical as well as technical queries. According to the committee, about 70% of the interview score would be the process of interview and 30% would comprise of the experience of the applicant. Dunlap felt that the system of scoring was extremely skewed and in favor of white candidates. This discussion investigates the legal issues in the episode and the decision to credit the claim of desperate treatment and neglect the disparate impact claim. Similarly, the discussion will suggest different ways in which Tennessee Valley authority can improve their process of interview. Discussion Legal issues They include David Dunlap, who believes that the process of interviewing in the TVA is discriminating and violates the Title seven of the 1964 Civil Right Act. David feels that he suffered prejudice under both disparate treatment and impact by the interview, which was increasingly subjective. Dunlap believes that the selection criteria favored white people. The committee evaluated all the applicants during the interview, but Dunlap felt that the evaluation process lacked merit and had limited rhyme. For instance, he scored low marks on a safety question than his colleague who has had more than two accidents in a span of 11 years, and for Dunlap, he had no accident, (Markusen, 2003). The system of evaluation itself can lead to various legal issues, for instance, the Tennessee Valley Authority’s subjective hiring and evaluation process allowed racial discrimination against Black applicants such as Dunlap. The Court of Appeal verified the claim of disparate treatment, reversed the claim of disparate adverse and verified the award of the district court of damages and fees to David. Why the disparate impact claim failed The theory of disparate claim demands the plaintiff to show that a seemingly impartial employment practice influences one team increasingly harshly than the other and that the practice of employment is unjustified by business requirements. Under the doctrine, discriminatory testimony intent is not necessary. Even though, the district court construed that Tennessee Valley Authority process of interviewing was influenced to exclude black applicants, the Appeals Court objected, citing inadequate statistical evidence that a protected team was negatively affected, therefore, creating a prima Facie argument. Dunlap could not support his case by just challenging the employed process in his interview; therefore, his case failed. Success of disparate treatment argument The doctrine of disparate treatment demands a plaintiff to show that the employer has favored some people against others based on their race, origin or cultural background. It also requires the plaintiff create a prima Facie condition of racial bias, the employer to demonstrate a number of legitimate nonbiased reasons for his actions and the plaintiff to show some evidence that the articulated accusation was pre-textual. In this theory, a discriminatory proof is crucial. Nevertheless, in different circumstances it may be concluded from the sole disparities in treatment. Discriminatory motive proof may be gathered from the employers’ false explanation for the actions. To refute a prima Facie argument, a defendant should show a legal nonbiased reason for rejection of plaintiff. In Dunlap’s case, Tennessee Valley Authority demonstrated the selection medium employed during the interview of Dunlap, and indicated that Dunlap’s interview score did not put his last marks into the best ten. The challenge then turned back to Dunlap to show that the process of selection was pretext for biasness. The district court confirmed that David successfully demonstrated pretext by showing that his medium marks were influenced to exclude him from the best ten candidates. Evidence demonstrated that the questions altered the weight assigned to the selection process to permit an increasingly subjective procedure. Similarly, the committee did not objectively assess the interview questions and scores were manipulated to generate a racially discriminated outcome. The court also construed that committee’s process of decision-making was motivated by discrimination. Therefore, considering Dunlap’s proof and the courts investigations, the court discovered that Tennessee Valley Court employed the selection criteria to mask Tennessee Valley Authority preferential process of hiring and to choose one black candidate that would satisfy the central management of TVA. Thus, the finding of international discrimination by the district court was not mistaken; therefore, Dunlap’s disparate treatment claim succeeded, (Owen, 2003). What the Tennessee Valley Authority would have done differently concerning the applicant’s interviewing and selection for the jobs First, the TVA would have used a non-pretext criterion during the selection and interviewing process. In the Dunlap’s case, the court found some pretext evidence such as the contravention of Tennessee Valley Authority rules on the interview process and evaluating applicant merit. Similarly, evidence indicates ultimate matrix scores manipulation by TVA management and selection committee. The Tennessee Valley Authority’s selection committee should have place more weight on objective measurements – skills and experience- and less weight on subjective evaluation – communication skills. Instead, the selection committee revealed its discriminatory motives in the score balancing strategy. For instance, the committee established that the overall interview practice comprise of both non-technical as well as technical queries. According to the committee, about 70% of the candidates final score would be the process of interview and 30% would comprise of the technical experience of the applicant. Therefore, through this decision, the committee shifted the weight of the determining mark from an objective evaluation (based on experience and skills) towards a more subjective evaluation (based on the applicant’s communication skills). Finally, the selection committee should have followed the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Standards and Practices on hiring applicants. The Tennessee Valley Authority mandates that merit and efficiency should form the foundation for the applicant’s selection for the job, (Tennessee Valley Authority, 2004). It also states that educational merits, training, expertise, capability and previous job performance should act as the basis for efficiency and merit appraisal. Conclusion Even though, the evidence at trial was not sufficient for a disparate impact finding, the district court succeeded in disparate treatment bias finding. Therefore, the court supported the disparate discriminatory treatment, inversed the argument of disparate adverse and supported the destruction and fine claim of the court. References Markusen, A. (January 01, 2003). Fuzzy Concepts, Scanty Evidence, Policy Distance: The Case for Rigour and Policy Relevance in Critical Regional Studies. Regional Studies, 37, 6-7. Owen, M. (2003). The Tennessee Valley Authority. New York: Praeger. Tennessee Valley Authority. (2007). Tennessee Valley Authority annual report. Knoxville, Tenn: Tennessee Valley Authority. Tennessee Valley Authority. (2004). The Tennessee Valley Authority. Washington?: U.S. G.P.O. Read More